Is it illegal / wrong to download TV-shows?

[A_M_Swallow]

The BBC allows you to download its radio shows for a week after they are broadcast.
BBC Radio
You can also get a recording of the TV news headlines and selected stories
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

 

[Kribu]

I download lots of TV shows and movies. Most are so bad they get deleted right away. But some shows are just quality TV, and they get my full support.

I agree with that point. I've ended up buying a number of shows as DVD box sets after downloading some of them to check them out (Firefly, 24, Farscape, Buffy and Angel for example, I'd also buy Odyssey 5 if it was released on DVD).

I'd never have done it otherwise - most of the shows I'm interested in never make it to TV here (we have three local channels and with a small potential audience/market and not too much money, why should those channels buy shows that would be niche shows here, with maybe a couple of thousand viewers?). And those that do, do it several years after being broadcast in the originating country.

TV show box sets tend to be a bit too expensive to buy at a hunch or purely on someone's recommendation, so downloading to sample is the only way to decide if it's worth spending money on or not. (We don't have the option of renting those shows on DVD here either.)

So from my own personal point of view .. downloading TV shows might be illegal, but me doing that isn't costing the studios or US channels (or the local channels here for that matter) any money, either directly or indirectly - instead, it's far more likely to win the producing studio money if I end up buying the DVDs. So I can't consider it entirely wrong either.

In the case of some shows, I've downloaded first, with the full intention to buy the DVDs later as they come out (Buffy for example - once I got hooked, I saw no reason to wait half a year for each new season to be released, so I downloaded it - and have been buying the DVD season sets as they come out.) Is that "wrong" or does it hurt anyone if I do so?

 

[GKarsEye]

I will either listen to it in the shop

Most major record chains only have kiosks with a couple of the top selling CDs you can listen to.

My local record store used to let you listen to anything in the store. That was so cool! But they got bought out by FYE.


If, hypothetically, downloading prevents some new shows from being made, so what? Have you seen TV? Why you want more of that? Yech.

Either way, if downloading TV is the worst thing you do, you'll be fine.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Whilst I have no strong opinion on the debate at hand one way or another, I would just point out that the music analogy is not particularly relevant here.

With CDs, whether singles or albums, you would have had to pay individually for each and every CD you download.

With TV it is completely different. With the exception of PPV movies or sports (for example) all you pay for is the right to receive the channel on which a show is broadcast. You will pay that regardless of whether you watch a show-then download it, miss it on broadcast-then download or just download.

However, the practice of making a show available online for download is almost certainly illegal, unless that individual has paid for the rights to distribute the show(s) that they make available in this way.

The music analogy also falls apart when you consider the numbers game. In the UK, TV shows have been known to get up to 20 million plus viewers - although generally even the most watched ones tend to come in at 8-12 million.

Compare that to a CD, which is awarded Platinum status after selling just 300,000 units.

A few thousand people here and there downloading a show and not watching the ads is hardly going to dent a successful shows ratings - but a few thousand downloading a CD and not buying it (which many do, let's at least be honest enough to admit that) will definitely impact on sales and revenue.

My guess is that the downloading of TV shows is not going to much bother the PTB for some time to come ...

... and IMO (as someone who already receives their TV "broadcast" through a dedicated broadband connection, complete with a library of movies and schedule-free channels available on demand for a small fee) it won't be too many years before the TV schedule as we know it all but disappears and the bulk of the system moves to an on-demand service.

'tis the digital age, don't you know.

 

[PillowRock]

A few thousand people here and there downloading a show and not watching the ads is hardly going to dent a successful shows ratings

From the POV of the effect on the shows, the question isn't really about the "successful shows" (the big hits). It's about the marginal shows. At some point there is a line where a few thousand people *is* the difference between a show getting another chance of being canceled (with the associated layoffs of the crew etc.).

and IMO it won't be too many years before the TV schedule as we know it all but disappears and the bulk of the system moves to an on-demand service.

But at that point the legal holder of the copyrights (or at least the distribution rights) will be providing the shows in a completely legal and above board manner. And you will being paying for the show, whether directly (on a pay per view basis) or indirectly (through monthly subscription fees).

That doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of illegal downloads any more than the appearance of iTunes changes the legallity of the original Napster service.




Even when taking a fairly hardline approach to downloading, though, I can't really conceive of any "wrong" in downloading shows that figure to never be available in any form in your country/reagion.

 

[GaribaldisHair]

Even when taking a fairly hardline approach to downloading, though, I can't really conceive of any "wrong" in downloading shows that figure to never be available in any form in your country/reagion.

But therein lies the problem.

The "How can it be wrong to download/copy something that is not available?" argument in favour of some forms of software/music piracy is one of the oldest in the book, and it falls down on one fundamental principle - the IP itself is still copyrighted and owned by someone, who MAY have future plans for it that could be scuppered by widespread internet sharing.

You may have an old CD lying around that is no longer available and you haven't played for years, but it would still be wrong for someone to steal it - who knows it may be a collectors item and very valuable one day.

Whilst a particular show may not be available NOW, a TV station getting wind that many people in their target audience have downloaded it may well decide not to bother buying it, for fear of crappy ratings and advertising revenue. [And let's face it much TV production these days seems to operate on fear - more low-brow, popcorn, eye candy TV that bring in the big ratings and therefore revenue, and less room for more intelligent, thoughtful shows that don't command the big ratings but provide a much more satisfying experience for the viewer.]

I would consider that sort of outcome to be a tick in the "Wrong" column.

But at that point the legal holder of the copyrights (or at least the distribution rights) will be providing the shows in a completely legal and above board manner. And you will being paying for the show, whether directly (on a pay per view basis) or indirectly (through monthly subscription fees).

That doesn't change the rightness or wrongness of illegal downloads any more than the appearance of iTunes changes the legallity of the original Napster service.

True, but people in this thread have already talked about the convenience factor as to why they download. Those that download for convenience will be well served by the kind of system you outlined.

Where downloading becomes wrong is the same in TV as it is in music and in software piracy. If you do it because you want it for free instead of paying for it then it is wrong. Period.

 

[PillowRock]

Even when taking a fairly hardline approach to downloading, though, I can't really conceive of any "wrong" in downloading shows that figure to never be available in any form in your country/reagion.

But therein lies the problem.

Yeah, I know. And I don't disagree.

My comment was primarily in reply to Kribu's discussion. It was a case where there are multiple language and format conversion hurdles that make it *extremely* unlikely that the shows would ever by imported for either broadcast or video sales.

My attitude about this particular piece of the puzzle may be coloured by being an American. I know that there is no way that any American broadcaster would ever subtitle a Lithuanian language show and convert it to NTSC. I sometimes lose sight of the fact that in other parts of the world the equivalent process is not nearly so unheard of.

 

[Kribu]

In my case, it's also a case of having 3 regular TV channels in a relatively poor country with 1.4 million people. There is *no* way all (or even the majority of good) niche shows could ever be shown here, it's just completely unlikely. Yes, sometimes there are nice surprises (like getting B5) but the TV channels have limited resources.

Of course, I'm not the ideal TV viewer anyay.

I don't actually watch TV at all. Apart from some skiing World Cup races and very occasionally the news (when I know something "big" has happened and actually remember to turn the TV on), I don't think I've even had it on at all for months, apart from watching DVDs. So I'd likely not watch stuff on TV even if something I'd be interested in was shown here .. I just wouldn't be aware of it. But that would be the same, whether I downloaded certain shows or not.

As for the earlier question of "do you want to get it for free" .. as long as it's a choice of "free" (downloading) or buying a full season DVD set of something I've never seen on a recommendation, I prefer to sample for free. If episodes were available legally for downloading, I would likely prefer to pay a reasonable fee for sampling (compared to DVD season set prices, I'd say that for a download-quality episode, something like $1-2 per episode would be reasonable) instead of trying to find a free way, yes ... but since that is not possible (yet?), I don't have many moral qualms either.

As I said earlier, I have ended up buying the DVD sets of most shows that I have liked, as soon as they have become available - and with shows I don't like, I don't exactly keep downloading and wasting my time and computer resources on them either.

 

[Shism]

Whilst I have no strong opinion on the debate at hand one way or another, I would just point out that the music analogy is not particularly relevant here.

I disagree GaribaldisHair, the music analogy is relevant, and for all the reasons you go on further to describe. I made the music analogy to clear up just what do I mean by 'wrong'. Evidently downloading TV-shows is illigal, but I figure it isn't wrong when nobody get hurt financially.

In my case, I download music but still buy the same amount of CDs, what makes it 'not wrong' in my individual case (I do realise there are others who have stopped paying for music, but I am not responsible for other people's behaviour)

Following the same logic, I return to my initial conclusion: it isn't 'wrong' when nobody get hurt financially.

Most major record chains only have kiosks with a couple of the top selling CDs you can listen to.My local record store used to let you listen to anything in the store. That was so cool! But they got bought out by FYE.

That's messed up, in which county (or perhaps -tries) is this the case? Here in the Netherlands it's pretty much standard that you can listen to whatever you want in the store.